next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi all! On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Peter Mortimer wrote: > > When was this survey sent out? > > It went out by email between December 19 and 23. If it had gone out to <all-ips@chebucto.ns.ca> it could have reached (almost!) all of our IP editors. > As noted in Chris's email, there *are* several IP Editors who have have > become *very* involved with CCN (I'm one of those as well). However, the > survey concentrated on those IP Editors who are not (at least not yet) > participating as CCN volunteers. It was an attempt to check out the > possible opportunities for recruiting CCN volunteers from this group of > users. I should have stated this in my original post - sorry about that. See my comments below. > I should also state that some IP Editors who received the original survey > are involved with CCN in other ways, but I can't tell you how many or who > - that's some of the information that I lost... but I believe that it was > only one. > > The survey resulted from a discussion that took place last October about > how we might expand the IP committee. and also: > It is unlikely that that we will be able to recruit CCN volunteers from > the IP editors . My attempts to involve IP editors in the IP committee > have been totally unsuccessful. I think this conclusion is both incorrect and also not based upon any real evidence at all. As a quick look at this area based upon some actual data, here is what I have just done. Using the data in the IP Database I have checked 46 Information Providers (the first 46 in sequence in the IPDB listed alphabetically according to their ip number) which represent exactly 20% of our active IPs or IP applications in process. In these 46 IPs a total of 72 IP editors were represented. Having selected these I used the Group Editor to check which of these IP Editors were *also* members of CCN (non-IP) edit groups which indicates that they are serving in some voluntary capacity with the CCN (a good use of the Group Editor, perhaps not envisioned in our original design specifications, although a tad tedious to use since I had repeat the operation 72 times ... ;->). Additionally, there were a couple of names of people who I knew to be active on committees but who weren't members of CCN edit groups. What this shows is that 31 of these 72 - an astounding 43% - are also involved as CCN volunteers in some capacity! Nota bene: my method almost certainly will *under-represent* the actual number of CCN volunteers since not every CCN volunteer need necessarily be part of a CCN edit group. It's my impression that surveying the remaining balance of 80% of CCN IPs (something I don't have time to do at the moment) would show similar figures. The proportion might drop slightly when it came to IP applications in progress (i.e. not yet actively functioning) since these in some instances represent people and groups new to the CCN who may not yet have had a chance to get otherwise involved in the organization. Thus, even these quick statistics certainly refute any suggestion that the pool of IP Editors is not a good place to find CCN volunteers - rather the complete opposite. They are almost certainly our most valuable reservoir and an astonishingly large number of them are serving the CCN in some volunteer capacity. Cheers, Chris _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "We have ... in this country ... far too many captive editors who cannot even be heard to rattle their chains." -- Carl E. Lindstrom _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects